I know, title sucks but nyeahh
OK, so I'm watching this show called Top Gear and they introduce me to my new love and I just had to write this down because I can't think of anything else to blog about. It's the Bugatti Veyron.
I don't know if any of you know about this car, but you should. You should.
For the car lovers, it has a 8.0L, W16, Quad Turbocharged, 987 BHP mid mounted engine. All in a car that weighs Kerb weight of 1888Kg. What this all boils down to is a top speed of 253.8 mph in a car that, in my humble opinion, is absolutely gorgeous.
I have been a Lamborghini fan (excluding the Diablo which I didn't care for) since I was a teenager and saw my first Countach. They are sleek, low vehicles with beautiful lines and curves. I will (of course) admit that the speed is a big selling point, but it's the way the car looks that I fell in love with. Not to mention the sound, with cars, you always have to consider the sound.
Then came along the Bugatti. As usual, it was the way it looked that made me go "Oh Baby!" It doesn't look anything like the Lamborghini. A Lamborghini is low and wide and sleek with a sharp nose. The Bugatti looks fatter and rounder (check it out on wikipedia) but it also looks sleeker and, well, better. The measurements stack up as follows: Lamborghini is 81"wide, 44.8" high and 181.5 long, with a 104.9" wheelbase, whereas the Bugatti is 78.1"wide, 45.8" high and 175.7 long, with a 106.7" wheelbase. Somehow, this makes the Bugatti seem smaller, almost like a one-person car.
When they test drove it on Top Gear, they used the Volkswagen test track in Germany that has a 5 mile long stretch of flat, straight road so that Richard Hammond could get it up to its alleged top speed. I don't remember if he actually made it (I know he got very close), but I do remember watching it move and it further convinced me to love the car. They never managed to get the car an to their "test track," where they time various cars and place the times on a board, because Bugatti wouldn't let them. Bummer.
And now the down-sides. As far as I can tell, there is only one (mileage doesn't count because it's a Super Car). The cost. It is somewhere around $1.4million, which is something I am not going to be able to afford in my lifetime. But hey, a man can dream, can't he.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Dumb Digital Delays Demand Dressing Down
In June of 2009, the broadcast companies throughout the United Stated were, by law, supposed to change over entirely to digital. This deadline was broadcast 2 years+ in advance and vociferously (fun word). It is now one year later and the broadcasts, at least in my house and home town, continue to come in analogue.
What Happened?
Millions of people throughout the nation were forced to get boxes and converters or new TVs ("Oh, TVs aren't necessary, they will get coupons for converter boxes") just to continue to be able to watch TV. IT WAS THE LAW!!! A deadline was set. But today, if I want to watch Smallville (which I don't because it's a re-run if it's even running tonight, I have to watch it in analogue which is a very bad way to watch a HD show dumbed down to regular because heaven help the cable companies if they had to provide HD channels at a reasonable price. hhhhhhh (that's supposed to be a release of breath). Anyway, if I want to watch Comedy Central . . . fuzzy Analogue picture. TV Land . . . fuzzy analogue.
Some are saying that there aren't enough boxes produced to cover the nation so these broadcasters are doing analogue as a courtesy. Then, why don't they also have a channel in digital? I mean, it was a deadline and the broadcasters aren't even TRYING to comply. Why aren't there enough boxes. Surely the production lines could produce enough boxes since the boxes WILL be bought. They have to be bought. It can't be cost. If it was, they would illegally hire illegal aliens to do the work. Everyone else does.
In the early 90s, it was determined that the computers of the world had a major flaw and "The end of the world (would) happen in 2000." This set a deadline to fix all the computers in the world. The deadline was met and the world was saved. SO, maybe that's what we need to do to get anything done. Start a panic. Apparently, the government has no authority or power to enforce a deadline, unless it ONLY costs citizens money and NOT corporations.
So, I say "Go ye forth and spread the dreadful news that the end of the world is nigh unless the broadcasters broadcast in digital by the year 2011. Make it scary. Really make people believe it. Also add in cheaper and better fuels and, while you're at it, make it a deadline for me to win the lottery. (Hey, I gotta try)
Word
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum A.E.
What Happened?
Millions of people throughout the nation were forced to get boxes and converters or new TVs ("Oh, TVs aren't necessary, they will get coupons for converter boxes") just to continue to be able to watch TV. IT WAS THE LAW!!! A deadline was set. But today, if I want to watch Smallville (which I don't because it's a re-run if it's even running tonight, I have to watch it in analogue which is a very bad way to watch a HD show dumbed down to regular because heaven help the cable companies if they had to provide HD channels at a reasonable price. hhhhhhh (that's supposed to be a release of breath). Anyway, if I want to watch Comedy Central . . . fuzzy Analogue picture. TV Land . . . fuzzy analogue.
Some are saying that there aren't enough boxes produced to cover the nation so these broadcasters are doing analogue as a courtesy. Then, why don't they also have a channel in digital? I mean, it was a deadline and the broadcasters aren't even TRYING to comply. Why aren't there enough boxes. Surely the production lines could produce enough boxes since the boxes WILL be bought. They have to be bought. It can't be cost. If it was, they would illegally hire illegal aliens to do the work. Everyone else does.
In the early 90s, it was determined that the computers of the world had a major flaw and "The end of the world (would) happen in 2000." This set a deadline to fix all the computers in the world. The deadline was met and the world was saved. SO, maybe that's what we need to do to get anything done. Start a panic. Apparently, the government has no authority or power to enforce a deadline, unless it ONLY costs citizens money and NOT corporations.
So, I say "Go ye forth and spread the dreadful news that the end of the world is nigh unless the broadcasters broadcast in digital by the year 2011. Make it scary. Really make people believe it. Also add in cheaper and better fuels and, while you're at it, make it a deadline for me to win the lottery. (Hey, I gotta try)
Word
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum A.E.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Car Conspiracies Claim Cataclismic Consumer Costs
OK, I said I would talk about the auto-oil conspiracy, here it is.
I am not a general subscriber to conspiracy theories, but some come along and scream, WHY NOT!!! The auto industry and the oil industry both claim that there is no conspiratorial link between them, but I would like to address some basic questions and let you, my readers (oh how few you are) either agree with me or tell me why I should take a flying leap (besides the obvious , that it would be fun :P to you Charlie :D).
Point one. We have had electrical and steam cars almost as long as we have had gas powered, and in the case of steam, longer. OK, so steam didn't work out. You had to have a coal bin and if they had kept it, it would have raise the cost of coal and a conspiracy between THOSE two countries. But the electric car industry had remained relatively stagnate until just recently.
We have batteries that fit in the palms of our hands and can run sophisticated computers for days, yet we can't get batteries to fit into a car and run it for more than a few hundred miles.On the surface and to me this seems illogical. Why don't we have the battery technology to run automobiles longer?
Point Two: The US government had declared, almost 35 years ago, that the automobile industry must increase fuel efficiency. Yet, still, cars get a paltry 30 MPG average. 30 MPG! That is moronic when you stop to consider cars that, in the past, have had better fuel efficiency than this. Far better. The 1990 - 1993 Geo Metro was a 3 cylinder engine that had sufficient acceleration. OK it wasn't 0-60 in 2.3 more like 10.2but who REALLY need higher. Anyway, the metro's fuel efficiency was 50 MPG. Honestly, 50 MPG is worth a lesser acceleration, when you consider how much time the average person sits and waits for a 80 second window to merge into 10 mph traffic.
Then, in about 1993, Chevrolet bought the Metro and put in a 4-cylinder engine. Somehow, doing this reduced the mileage to 31 MPG. That's a HUGE difference. For an "economy" car to get that mileage should be a crime. And yes, it should be considering the "auto industry should increase fuel efficiency" statement of the Carter Administration. But, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around a 19 MPG loss by just adding a cylinder.
Point 3: As the price of gas went higher, MPG went lower and the Auto Industry manufactured a pushed more vehicles that got lower efficiency. I'm talking about those "Marvelously safe" SUVs, that turned out to not be safe at all. The only thing they had going for them was s**tty fuel economy and big price. It has been a curious phenomenon I have been seeing all my life. As the price of oil has climbed, the fuel economy has declined. Every time.
Point 4: Back to electric cars. We now have a wider choice of electric cars, but they are priced prohibitively high. The Auto industry says it's to offset a low demand. What a great excuse. When you price something so high that only the rich can afford it, and market it to the poor (read low class), the only ones who can afford it (read the high class) won't because it's too low brow for them. Regardless of the fact that I have met more high class people in the low income range than I have in the high income range. (I had to put that second "range" in to avoid a dangling participle.)
So, there are my 4 points. Argue among yourselves. Hitting is allowed, but only if you do it hard and don't hit me.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem Universum. A.E.
I am not a general subscriber to conspiracy theories, but some come along and scream, WHY NOT!!! The auto industry and the oil industry both claim that there is no conspiratorial link between them, but I would like to address some basic questions and let you, my readers (oh how few you are) either agree with me or tell me why I should take a flying leap (besides the obvious , that it would be fun :P to you Charlie :D).
Point one. We have had electrical and steam cars almost as long as we have had gas powered, and in the case of steam, longer. OK, so steam didn't work out. You had to have a coal bin and if they had kept it, it would have raise the cost of coal and a conspiracy between THOSE two countries. But the electric car industry had remained relatively stagnate until just recently.
We have batteries that fit in the palms of our hands and can run sophisticated computers for days, yet we can't get batteries to fit into a car and run it for more than a few hundred miles.On the surface and to me this seems illogical. Why don't we have the battery technology to run automobiles longer?
Point Two: The US government had declared, almost 35 years ago, that the automobile industry must increase fuel efficiency. Yet, still, cars get a paltry 30 MPG average. 30 MPG! That is moronic when you stop to consider cars that, in the past, have had better fuel efficiency than this. Far better. The 1990 - 1993 Geo Metro was a 3 cylinder engine that had sufficient acceleration. OK it wasn't 0-60 in 2.3 more like 10.2but who REALLY need higher. Anyway, the metro's fuel efficiency was 50 MPG. Honestly, 50 MPG is worth a lesser acceleration, when you consider how much time the average person sits and waits for a 80 second window to merge into 10 mph traffic.
Then, in about 1993, Chevrolet bought the Metro and put in a 4-cylinder engine. Somehow, doing this reduced the mileage to 31 MPG. That's a HUGE difference. For an "economy" car to get that mileage should be a crime. And yes, it should be considering the "auto industry should increase fuel efficiency" statement of the Carter Administration. But, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around a 19 MPG loss by just adding a cylinder.
Point 3: As the price of gas went higher, MPG went lower and the Auto Industry manufactured a pushed more vehicles that got lower efficiency. I'm talking about those "Marvelously safe" SUVs, that turned out to not be safe at all. The only thing they had going for them was s**tty fuel economy and big price. It has been a curious phenomenon I have been seeing all my life. As the price of oil has climbed, the fuel economy has declined. Every time.
Point 4: Back to electric cars. We now have a wider choice of electric cars, but they are priced prohibitively high. The Auto industry says it's to offset a low demand. What a great excuse. When you price something so high that only the rich can afford it, and market it to the poor (read low class), the only ones who can afford it (read the high class) won't because it's too low brow for them. Regardless of the fact that I have met more high class people in the low income range than I have in the high income range. (I had to put that second "range" in to avoid a dangling participle.)
So, there are my 4 points. Argue among yourselves. Hitting is allowed, but only if you do it hard and don't hit me.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem Universum. A.E.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Avatar
First off let me apologize for no alliteration on the title, it gets hard.
So, I've finally seen Avatar and here is my review.
*********SPOILER ALERT*********SPOILER ALERT*********
First off, I will start by saying I didn't want to see the movie because I had low expectations. All it had going for it in the reviews I read was the effects and the plot seemed rather flimsy.
I have been wrong on many movies and have watched some that I thought would suck and they turned out pretty good. This was NOT one of them. I found it was even worse than my expectations. However, I was wrong on my complaint about a Marine turning against his comrades. Mainly, he wasn't a Marine, he was just a Soldier of Fortune. Private security. Granted I did not finish the movie, I couldn't stand more then about 30 minutes worth.
First, the premise. Humans are on a planet they cannot breathe on and are mining a mineral called "Unobtainium." Really? Unobtainium? How do you obtain Unobtainium and, most importantly, how do you even find it on a jungle world you cannot even breath on and that has creatures you need an armoured battle suit to defend against? Do they just drop companies off on random worlds and say "See if you can find something unobtainable that's worth a s**tload of money?" Come On! Can't they find this stuff on OTHER bodies in the same system that is, after all, composed of the same stuff the planet is?
Next comes the bone structure of the aliens. Their bones are made of "A naturally occurring carbon fiber." How is that done. Okay, I can concede that anything man can make, nature can make, after all, we can make diamonds. Do these aliens, though, drive naturally occurring '57 Chevies? Actually, since they are environmentally aware, it would probably be naturally occurring Toyota Priuses Where does the body get other naturally occurring carbon fiber to grow, from the fruits? That would make the fruits, not only deadly to eat for humans, but also pretty hard, I would think. I know that nothing growing on that world could sustain humans.
Let's talk about the great tacticians that are waging this war of hostile corporate takeover. They have a Colonel who was a veteran and the first day there he loses half his face. So what does he do? He sends out an Avatar with NO knowledge of the flora and fauna and a MG36 that is absolutely and completely USELESS. It couldn't hurt on of the native flies, yet the Na'vi (which is f**ked around "native") can kill these thing with bows made of wood, not bone. I mean, would bone be better in this case? They must have wanted the scientist's avatar dead (which was possibly the case, like I said, I didn't finish the movie).
How about this "Unobtainium." What is it. More importantly, what is it used for, beside 10 million dollars a kilo, which works out to $279,876 an ounce, which would be the approximate value of a rock of crack in their time. I mean, they didn't say what good the stuff is. Is it harder than tempered titanium? Can it be spun super thin for space elevators? Can it cure the common cold? What can it possibly be worth, to force an audience to sit through this?
The FX, I must admit, were very good. I wouldn't say "great" because I didn't see it in HD and what I did see, for the most part, was no better than some other things we've see, like a special on the tropical rain forests. If the real people were computer generated (something I suspect) then yes, that was fantastic. But it, to me, wasn't worth paying $15 to see. That's why I waited until it came out on Netflix. They spent millions of dollars creating their own little world to great detail, kudos there.
Then there is the Avatar. This guy, who helped design the avatars, trained to use it over Lord-knows-how-many years and studies Na'vi culture, language, biology add nausea, dies and is replaced by his brother who is a Marine that apparently has no where near the same intelligence or training. This guy, who has been paralyzed for at least 5 years, is then linked into an alien body and can instantly control every aspect. He also, without training, knows exactly what to wrap around his spear to simulate pitch and create a torch. Then what happens? He meets a Na'vi babe (who most likely ends up being his snuggle cuddle) and before she kills him, the great tree seed stops her. Let me guess, it tells her he's "the prophesied one."
My lovely and wonderful wife wants me to add in the character concepts. Sigourney Weaver is still playing the same role she played in Alien (and just about everything else) The Colonel is a cookie cutter stereotypical bad ass with no ther personality other than "kill it before it even looks in your direction so it doesn't kill you," the character we're supposed to care about is dead before the show even starts, and the main character is the typical brooding-over-the-death-of-my-brother-and-what-life-has-done-to-me character.
So, thee you have it, my review. My son says he'll punch me if this is a bad review, so I get punched. It could have been worse, my wife could have made me sit through the entire movie. Fortunately, she agrees with me on the movie. Y'all be good now, y'hear?
Charles
Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem Universum
So, I've finally seen Avatar and here is my review.
*********SPOILER ALERT*********SPOILER ALERT*********
First off, I will start by saying I didn't want to see the movie because I had low expectations. All it had going for it in the reviews I read was the effects and the plot seemed rather flimsy.
I have been wrong on many movies and have watched some that I thought would suck and they turned out pretty good. This was NOT one of them. I found it was even worse than my expectations. However, I was wrong on my complaint about a Marine turning against his comrades. Mainly, he wasn't a Marine, he was just a Soldier of Fortune. Private security. Granted I did not finish the movie, I couldn't stand more then about 30 minutes worth.
First, the premise. Humans are on a planet they cannot breathe on and are mining a mineral called "Unobtainium." Really? Unobtainium? How do you obtain Unobtainium and, most importantly, how do you even find it on a jungle world you cannot even breath on and that has creatures you need an armoured battle suit to defend against? Do they just drop companies off on random worlds and say "See if you can find something unobtainable that's worth a s**tload of money?" Come On! Can't they find this stuff on OTHER bodies in the same system that is, after all, composed of the same stuff the planet is?
Next comes the bone structure of the aliens. Their bones are made of "A naturally occurring carbon fiber." How is that done. Okay, I can concede that anything man can make, nature can make, after all, we can make diamonds. Do these aliens, though, drive naturally occurring '57 Chevies? Actually, since they are environmentally aware, it would probably be naturally occurring Toyota Priuses Where does the body get other naturally occurring carbon fiber to grow, from the fruits? That would make the fruits, not only deadly to eat for humans, but also pretty hard, I would think. I know that nothing growing on that world could sustain humans.
Let's talk about the great tacticians that are waging this war of hostile corporate takeover. They have a Colonel who was a veteran and the first day there he loses half his face. So what does he do? He sends out an Avatar with NO knowledge of the flora and fauna and a MG36 that is absolutely and completely USELESS. It couldn't hurt on of the native flies, yet the Na'vi (which is f**ked around "native") can kill these thing with bows made of wood, not bone. I mean, would bone be better in this case? They must have wanted the scientist's avatar dead (which was possibly the case, like I said, I didn't finish the movie).
How about this "Unobtainium." What is it. More importantly, what is it used for, beside 10 million dollars a kilo, which works out to $279,876 an ounce, which would be the approximate value of a rock of crack in their time. I mean, they didn't say what good the stuff is. Is it harder than tempered titanium? Can it be spun super thin for space elevators? Can it cure the common cold? What can it possibly be worth, to force an audience to sit through this?
The FX, I must admit, were very good. I wouldn't say "great" because I didn't see it in HD and what I did see, for the most part, was no better than some other things we've see, like a special on the tropical rain forests. If the real people were computer generated (something I suspect) then yes, that was fantastic. But it, to me, wasn't worth paying $15 to see. That's why I waited until it came out on Netflix. They spent millions of dollars creating their own little world to great detail, kudos there.
Then there is the Avatar. This guy, who helped design the avatars, trained to use it over Lord-knows-how-many years and studies Na'vi culture, language, biology add nausea, dies and is replaced by his brother who is a Marine that apparently has no where near the same intelligence or training. This guy, who has been paralyzed for at least 5 years, is then linked into an alien body and can instantly control every aspect. He also, without training, knows exactly what to wrap around his spear to simulate pitch and create a torch. Then what happens? He meets a Na'vi babe (who most likely ends up being his snuggle cuddle) and before she kills him, the great tree seed stops her. Let me guess, it tells her he's "the prophesied one."
My lovely and wonderful wife wants me to add in the character concepts. Sigourney Weaver is still playing the same role she played in Alien (and just about everything else) The Colonel is a cookie cutter stereotypical bad ass with no ther personality other than "kill it before it even looks in your direction so it doesn't kill you," the character we're supposed to care about is dead before the show even starts, and the main character is the typical brooding-over-the-death-of-my-brother-and-what-life-has-done-to-me character.
So, thee you have it, my review. My son says he'll punch me if this is a bad review, so I get punched. It could have been worse, my wife could have made me sit through the entire movie. Fortunately, she agrees with me on the movie. Y'all be good now, y'hear?
Charles
Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem Universum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
